Slashdot Mirror
One Year Later, "Dead" XP Still Going Strong
snydeq writes "Microsoft pulled the plug on Windows XP a year ago today, no longer selling new copies in most venues. Yet according to a report from InfoWorld, various downgrade paths to XP are keeping the operating system very much alive, particularly among businesses. In fact, despite Microsoft trumpeting Vista as the most successful version of Windows ever sold, more than half of business PCs have subsequently downgraded Vista-based machines to XP, according to data provided by community-based performance-monitoring network of PCs. Microsoft recently planned to further limit the ability to downgrade to XP now that Windows 7 is in the pipeline, but backlash against the licensing scheme prompted the company to change course, extending downgrade rights on new PCs from April 2010 to April 2011."
This trend will stop when Windows 7 is introduce.
Mark it on the wall.
Clearly, Microsoft used worcestershire sauce as an embalming fluid.
XP is going to die rather quickly once one or more of the following happen: 2.5TB or bigger hard disks drop below $100 (no GUID partition table support in XP), applications make good use of more than 4GB RAM (XP64 driver support "could be better"), USB3 devices become available in mass quantities (no USB3 support in XP), IPv4 addresses run out and major ISPs offer IPv6 access (IPv6 support in XP is incomplete and lacks a UI), Duke Nukem Forever is released for Windows 7 only.
32bit is a dead end. How much RAM would you stuff into your computers if your OS and applications could use it. The price of RAM is through the floor and nobody buys the stuff because more than 3GB is completely useless in a typical Windows PC due to architecture limitations.
(everyone who Knows Better will know I'm talking about most users, IT shops, etc - not the technical "merits")
Microsoft is finally getting bit by cultivating and preying on the culture of Good Enough. XP supports current hardware, runs current apps, ISVs are still writing for it. Users are comfortable with it, it handles games well (hey, check out the number of Big Name Games that require DX10), and while it's a security nightmare, most competent shops know enough to be able to keep their machines STD-free.
Vista is a host of new problems, support issues, and sucks on the same hardware XP zips on. Windows 7 isn't officially out yet... and when it is, most IT shops are going to wait. They'll poke it with a stick, sniff it like a dog, and rather it's a genuine improvement or not, they're not going to hop on it until they have to.
XP is the new BSD. It'll be "dying" for the next five to ten years. It's going to take a massive paradigm shift* in computing to get rid of it.
* I don't mean quad cores or eight-way cores or 64 gigs of ram for a nickel. I mean something equivalent to a massive rendering farm running an OS with a pile of APIs that'll securely handle every windows (and mac, while we're fantasizing) application ever written, with a battery life measured in decades. Said hardware would be the size of an iPhone, even easier to use, and you'd be able to buy them in vending machines at bus stations for $1.25. I mean that kind of paradigm shift.
You know what amazes me. Back in the days when Windows 95, the OS constantly ate itself. Blue screens were common. Rebooting was a constant need when things started going south. Reinstalling the OS became habit for even the least technical of computer users.... and you know what? For whatever reason, they didn't complain nearly as much as you people do. You have a piece of shit software firewall that isn't playing nice with your Vista and *BAM* that's it. The OS blows and that's that. Back in my day we wrote init strings to our modems over a serial connection AND LIKED IT! Now if the newfangled cheap-as-dirt wireless card doesn't plug in, magically know which network is yours and your password without asking, and give you theoretical limits in speed then you BREAK OUT THE PICKFORKS and demand the head of a virgin.
I'm out of beer.
I'll be back.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
I've been using 64-bit Linux since 2006, and it's exactly like running 32-bit Linux, except you can use more RAM.
You can use more than 4gb of RAM on 32-bit Linux, too. All you have to do is install a Physical Address Extension (PAE) aware kernel:
sudo sudo apt-get install linux-headers-server linux-image-server linux-server
sudo shutdown -r now
32bit is a dead end. How much RAM would you stuff into your computers if your OS and applications could use it. The price of RAM is through the floor and nobody buys the stuff because more than 3GB is completely useless in a typical Windows PC due to architecture limitations.
Someone mod this man UP.
What he speaks is 100% the truth. 32-bit is at an end and it's only lazy program and [especially] driver developers that are keeping us using it. Vista 64-bit functions almost transparently running 32-bit applications -- I've never had a problem -- it's only drivers that it gets stuck up on (not everyone is coding 64-bit drivers). Over the lifespan of Vista, however, I've seen that problem slowly decline (been using 64-bit Vista since the day it went gold), and now (with Windows 7) I think it's time that they went 64-bit ONLY.
I see Microsoft embracing 64-bit fully internally. Forefront TMG is 64-bit ONLY, and Server 2008 R2 is going to be 64-bit only also.